• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Revitalization of the AM Radio Service ) MB Docket No. 13-249 To: The Commission COMMENTS OF THE SOCIETY OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED IN RESPONSE TO FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY The Society of Broadcast Engineers, Incorporated (“SBE”)1 respectfully submits its Comments in response to the Commission’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and to the combined Notice of Inquiry, FCC 15-142, 30 FCC Rcd 12145, released October 23, 2015 in the above-captioned proceeding (collectively referred to herein as the “Further Notice”).2 The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to implement “further proposals, suggested by commenters in this proceeding, that [the Commission] believe[s] will further enhance the viability of the AM broadcast service.” The Notice of Inquiry “pose[s] questions regarding further utilization of the AM Expanded Band, as proposed by certain commenters.” The Further Notice therefore follows up on the First Report and Order in this proceeding, which adopted several proposals intended to assist AM broadcasters to better serve the public, thereby advancing the Commission’s fundamental goals of localism, competition, and diversity in 1 SBE is the national association of broadcast engineers and technical communications professionals, with more than 5,000 members. 2 The Further Notice is a component of the First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, which was published in the Federal Register January 19, 2016. See, 81 Fed. Reg. 2818 et seq. These comments are timely filed 1 broadcast media. SBE offers these comments in an effort to focus the Commission’s attention not on what is proposed or inquired about in the rulemaking or inquiry portions of the Further Notice, but rather to raise once again an urgent subject that the Commission did not address in the First Report and Order in this proceeding and apparently does not intend to consider in the remainder of this proceeding: that of ambient noise in the AM Broadcast band specifically, and in the Medium Frequency (MF) bands generally. It is SBE’s sincere belief that the Commission has made and is currently examining some additional short-term improvements in AM broadcasting in this proceeding. However necessary these short-term initiatives are, they are not going to lead to any meaningful, long-term improvement in MF AM broadcasting. To do that, the Commission is going to have to be willing to implement some difficult regulatory reforms that it has not heretofore addressed, and to commit to a regulatory plan which, over time, will reduce the levels of man-made noise in the MF bands, and more broadly in the bands below 30 megahertz. For its comments, SBE states as follows: 1. The First Report and Order in this proceeding implemented some opportunities for AM broadcasters, including the ability of some AM licensees to acquire FM translators for use with their stations. The elimination of the “ratchet rule” will allow a Class A or B station to make facility changes without offsetting that benefit by having to demonstrate that the improvements will result in an overall reduction in the amount of skywave interference caused to certain other AM stations. Permitting AM stations to use Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (“MDCL”) control technologies or algorithms that vary either the carrier power level or both the carrier and sideband power levels as a function of the modulation level will allow AM licensees to reduce power consumption while maintaining audio quality and their licensed station coverage areas. The Commission also modified the daytime community coverage requirement for licensed AM 2 facilities only, to require that the station’s predicted or measured daytime 5 mV/m contour encompass only either 50 percent of the population or 50 percent of the area of the community of license. All of these actions are arguably helpful as short-term fixes for the economic conditions facing AM licensees. However, the Commission did not address a significant request made by SBE in its comments filed January 21, 2014 in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making3 in this proceeding: commencement of an initiative to reduce ambient AM broadcast band noise, by means of Part 15 and Part 18 rule changes and stepped-up enforcement efforts relative to existing rules. The goal is a significant reduction in AM broadcast band spectrum pollution, especially along public rights-of-way and in residential areas, where AM broadcast reception is most urgent. SBE’s premise was that there is an ever-worsening noise floor in the AM band in particular and in the MF range in general. It is a big part of what drives listeners away from the band. 2. SBE’s comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making had stated in part as follows: At paragraph 5 of the Notice, the Commission states candidly - and SBE suggests absolutely accurately - that ‘AM radio is particularly susceptible to interference from electronic devices of all types, including such ubiquitous items as TV sets, vehicle engines, fluorescent lighting, computers, and power lines. The noise on the AM band that is caused by those sources is only expected to increase as electronic devices continue to proliferate.’ SBE suggests that this enunciation of the current and predicted future RF environment in the medium-frequency spectrum is overly fatalistic, however. It is SBE’s view that the goal of AM revitalization will never be realized in the medium and long term in the face of the headwind of a worsening RF noise environment in the AM broadcast band. Some regulatory relief is absolutely necessary. It is true that the Commission did not propose any regulatory reform with respect to ambient RF noise in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and therefore it should not have been expected that 3 Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 28 FCC Rcd 15221 (2013). 3 the Commission would adopt any regulatory changes to address this complex issue. However, it was SBE’s hope that in the Further Notice there would be a proposal to manage MF noise levels; to develop a plan to cause those levels to plateau, and then to decrease, over time. Nothing, however, was proposed in either the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making portion of the October 21, 2015 document or in the Notice of Inquiry part, to address RF noise. SBE is of the view that this is a critical omission and that, in any comprehensive, serious plan to improve AM broadcasting, reduction in ambient RF noise over time is a necessary component. 3. Having acknowledged in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making that the high noise levels in the AM band are expected to increase further with the increases in the number of electronic products (and due to aging infrastructure such as, for example, power lines), it is discouraging that in this proceeding, from the outset to the present time, the Commission seems content to allow the ambient noise levels in the AM broadcast band (and in the remainder of the MF and HF spectrum as well) to continue to increase and to accept the deteriorating RF environment as a “given.” There were very few passing references to this issue in the October 21, 2015 Report and Order. One reference was relative to the proposal to change nighttime and critical hours protection to Class A AM stations. The argument from commenters was that they could provide better service, with more power to “overcome the local noise floor,” if the protection requirements for Class A stations were relaxed. There was no discussion of the possibility of reducing the noise floor. In the same discussion, the Commission stated that: “In this proceeding, spectrum scarcity is not the problem as much as is the need for existing AM stations to overcome an increasing noise floor that inhibits local service, both day and night.” It is unclear why the discussion was limited to power increases and reduction of protection criteria, rather than the commencement of a discussion about reduction of the noise floor. With respect 4 to nighttime RSS Calculation methodology, the Commission said that some commenters urged a return to the 50 percent exclusion method used prior to 1991, which considered only the skywave contributions to RSS calculations of co-channel stations, on the theory that it would enable AM broadcasters to improve their facilities and signals and thus overcome the “increasing noise floor.” 4. It is well understood that the Commission has over the past several decades strongly supported unlicensed, low-power RF devices and systems. Unlicensed, low-power technologies are efficient from a regulatory perspective because (1) they do not require licensing and (2) due to either low power or very intermittent duty cycles, those devices that comply with the Commission’s rules are individually not significant contributors to the MF noise environment. However, the Commission apparently does not have a clear understanding of the aggregate effects of Part 15 and Part 18 unlicensed devices. Nor does it have any practical ability to address the interference potential of unlicensed devices past the point of sale. The Commission’s ability to conduct post-point-of-sale interference remediation is virtually non-existent4 and its recent, draconian reductions in field staff available to conduct spectrum enforcement have made it clear that there is no chance that enforcement in interference cases involving unlicensed devices is not going to be available in the future either. Therefore, the only source of regulatory reform that has a meaningful chance to positively affect the noise floor over time are the regulations that create obligations on manufacturers and importers and dealers, prior to the point that the consumer or user of the device or system comes into possession of it and before it is deployed.

Load more

  14

Copy Link